Difference between revisions of "Book of Mormon/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky"

m
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
 
{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
−
{{Resource Title|Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?}}
+
{{Resource Title|The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon}}
 
{{BoMPortal}}
 
{{BoMPortal}}
 
== ==
 
== ==
−
{{Criticism label}}
+
{{QA label}}
−
 
+
{{:Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?}}
−
It is claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon:
+
</onlyinclude>
−
 
 
−
:[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a ''thousand'' plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." {{io}}<Ref>{{CriticalWork:A Little Talk:1840|pages=1–8}}</ref>
 
 
{{CriticalSources}}
 
{{CriticalSources}}
−
 
+
{{endnotes sources}}
−
== ==
 
−
{{Conclusion label}}  
 
−
 
 
−
One hears little of this critique today; linguistic "fact" has caught up with the Book of Mormon, the critics have largely abandoned this approach.
 
−
 
 
−
== ==
 
−
{{Response label}}
 
−
 
 
−
Unfortunately for the critics, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy.  Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because ''no one'' knew very much.  The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics.  However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing.  As discussed in the [[Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian|main article]], variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints.
 
−
 
 
−
== ==
 
−
{{Endnotes label}}
 
−
<references />
 
  
 
==Best articles to read next==
 
==Best articles to read next==
Line 32: Line 17:
 
{{FurtherReading}}
 
{{FurtherReading}}
  
 +
 +
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
 +
 +
<!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE -->
 
[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Reformiertes_%C3%84gyptisch]]
 
[[de:Anachronismen_im_Buch_Mormon/Reformiertes_%C3%84gyptisch]]
 +
[[en:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Language/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky]]
 
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Egipcio reformado]]
 
[[es:Anacronismos del Libro de Mormón: Egipcio reformado]]
−
{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}
+
[[pt:O Livro de Mórmon/Anacronismos/Egípcio reformado/Egípcio demasiado volumoso]]
−
 
 
−
[[fr:Book of Mormon/Anachronisms/Reformed Egyptian/Egyptian too bulky]]
 

Revision as of 14:24, 18 May 2016

  1. REDIRECTTemplate:Test3

The use of Egyptian on the plates of the Book of Mormon

Answers portal
Book of Mormon
GoldPlates1.jpg
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    RESOURCES

General information:

Book of Mormon & Bible:

Criticisms:

Perspectives.icon.tiny.1.png    PERSPECTIVES
Media.icon.tiny.1.png    MEDIA
Resources.icon.tiny.1.png    OTHER PORTALS

Question: Would Egyptian be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon?

The Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing

It has been claimed that Egyptian would be too lengthy and bulky on the plates to account for the Book of Mormon:

[Egyptian would take] "perhaps four times, or even more than four times, as much room as the English, and it is quite certain that, as the Book of Mormon is 600 pages thick, it would take at least a thousand plates to hold in the Egyptian language, what is there written." (italics in original)[1]

One hears little of this critique today; linguistic "fact" has caught up with the Book of Mormon, the critics have largely abandoned this approach.

At the time that this assertion was made, knowledge of Egyptian was in its infancy. Critics of the era knew little about Egyptian, because no one knew very much. The critics were probably thinking of Egyptian hieroglyphics. However, the Book of Mormon makes it clear that reformed Egyptian had been adapted by them for concise writing. As discussed in the main article, variant Old World forms of Egyptian (such as Demotic) were quite compact, and well-suited for writing with space constraints.


To see citations to the critical sources for these claims, click here

Notes

  1. ↑ A Little Talk, Between John Robinson and his Master about Mormonism, Shewing its Origin, Absurdity, and Impiety (Bedford: W. White, 1840), 1–8. off-site

Best articles to read next

The best article(s) to read next on this topic is/are:

  1. William J. Hamblin, "Reformed Egyptian," FARMS Review 19/1 (2007): 31–35. off-site wiki
  2. William J. Hamblin, "Review of Archaeology and the Book of Mormon by Jerald and Sandra Tanner," FARMS Review of Books 5/1 (1993): 250–272. off-site
  3. Stephen D. Ricks and John A. Tvedtnes, "Jewish and Other Semitic Texts Written in Egyptian Characters," Journal of Book of Mormon Studies 5/2 (1996). [156–163] link


Further reading and additional sources responding to these claims

Retrieved from "https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/index.php?title=Book_of_Mormon/Language/Reformed_Egyptian/Egyptian_too_bulky&oldid=142550"